Karnataka

Bidar

CC/89/2016

Mallikarjun S/o Shanthlingayya swamy Bidar - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.O. Shri Ram General Ins.Co.Ltd Jaipur - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.Deshpande

30 May 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                   C.C.No. 89/2016

 

                                                                                                     Date of filing :  06/10/2016

 

                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 30/05/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-            (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                   (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                                Member.

 

                                  

                                                                                                                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:             Mallikarjun, S/o Shantlingayya Swamy,   

                                           Age: 53 Yrs, Occ: Private work,

                                              R/o village Harnal, Tq.Bhalki,

                                           Dist.Bidar.

                                          

              

                                         (By Shri. Deshpande P. M., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               1.  H.O. Shri Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd.

                                               E-8, EPIP RICCO Ind. Area,

                                                  Sitapura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan state )-302002.

 

                                             2.  Branch Manager,

                                                   Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

                                               Near Stadium, Bidar.

                      

                                     

  

 

                                          (   By Shri. S. Wilson , Advocate )  

                          

 

                                              

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    The complainant is before this Forum filing a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.Ps. as described hereunder:-  

 

2.           That, he to eke out a living had opted to purchase a  Tata Ace vehicle Reg.No. KA.39/6376.   The complainant has insured his vehicle with the O.P.no.1 and paid the policy premium up to date for              Rs.14,540/-. The date of validity of the insurance was from 10/07/2015 to 09/07/2016.  The complainant was plying his vehicle by driver by name Ravi Swamy who was holding driving licence.  The complainant avers that, on 19/05/2016 the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident and the vehicle sustained heavy damages in the accident and thereafter the vehicle was repaired against expenses to the tune of   Rs. 3,23,311/- at  Bhalkeshar Motor Garage at Bhalki.   Thereafter the complainant submitted the claim before the O.P.no.1 with all relevant documents.  The O.P.no.1 has repudiated the claim on 30/05/2016 on the grounds that, the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective driving licence the repudiation of the O.P. is not in accordance with law and this act of the O.Ps. shows deficiency in  service on the part of the O.Ps.   Hence the complainant before this Forum.

 

3.               On service of Court’s notice the O.Ps. have appeared   and O.P.No.2 has filed his written version therein stating that, the contents and allegations made in the complaint filed by the complainant are wrong both in law and on facts hence denied by the O.P.no.2.  The complaint is misconceived and filed with the sole intention to harass the O.P.no.2 therefore the same is not maintainable.  The contents of para no.1 are declaratory, hence need no specific rebuttal.  The information given in columns (a) to (1) in the para no.2 of the complaint are true, the information in column no. (m) and (n) is not known to the O.P. hence denied.  The O.P.2 is unaware of the contentions of the para no.3 of the complainant hence denied.  The O.P.no. denied the contention of the complainant in para no.4 of the complaint regarding the accident took place on 19/05/2016 and the vehicle sustained damages and was repaired for Rs. 3,23,311/-.  It was the duty of the complainant to inform about the alleged accident, but the complainant failed to perform his duty.  The contention about the driving licence of one Ravi Swamy is not known to the O.P.no.2.  The contentions made in para no.5 of the complaint are false, hence denied. The complainant stated that the claim for said damages was submitted to the O.P’s office but the complainant has failed to mention as to which O.P’s office the claim was sent.  Again the complainant states that, the O.P. repudiated the claim, but the complainant has not mentioned clearly  which respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant.  This O.P. neither received any information about the alleged accident, nor any claim.  The non receipt of claim is understandable, because this O.P. is not the insurance Company, hence the alleged claim could not have been sent to the office of O.P.No.2.  This O.P. is not at all concerned with the alleged grievance of the complainant but, the complainant knowing this fact very well, seems to have made this O.P. to this litigation only to escape from paying the probable EMIs of the vehicle, hence the complaint against this O.P. deserves to be dismissed with imposing heavy costs.  The complainant has executed a loan cum hypothecation agreement in favour of O.P. financial institution at Bhalki branch on 24/08/2015, wherein one Mr. Revappayya s/o Siddayya stood as guarantee.  In view of availment of loan from O.P. financial institution, the complainant is a Borrower of O.P.  Therefore the Borrower is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, complaint filed by the complainant against O.P. financial institution is not at all maintainable before the Forum.

4.               The complainant has borrowed the loan form the O.P. financial institution to purchase the said vehicle for the purpose of his transportation business.  The loan availed by the complainant is  a commercial vehicle loan and the complainant is commercial user of the vehicle.  Therefore, complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section (2) (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, complaint filed by the complainant against this O.P. financial institution is not at all maintainable before the Hon’ble Forum.  That according to clause 15 of the loan cum hypothecation agreement, the complainant has agreed and undertaken to get resolve all his disputes, claims or difference opinions in respect of vehicle loan transaction if any through a process of Arbitration.  Therefore, in view of existence of arbitration agreement, instead of approaching Arbitral Tribunal, the complainant has directly approached the Forum hence this complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.

 

5.          Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

 

2. What order ?

 

6.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1. In the negative.

               4. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

                                                   :: REASONS::

7.                In the instant case, even though the complainant has submitted documents like R.C. Book, permit, insurance certificate, D.L of the driver and repudiation letter of the O.P.No.1 and estimate for vehicle repair,  not a scrap of paper has been produced as to whether any police complaint was filed after the accident and I.M.V. inspection as per law was ever conducted on the damaged vehicle.  Thats’, excepting an averment of alleged accident on 19/05/2016, no proof of the same is ever led.

 

8.              Had the complainant submitted the basic documents described above, we would have analysed the validity of the repudiation of the O.P.no.1 in it’s proper perspective so also the assertions of the O.P.No.2 but the complainant failing to substantiate the fact of accident, we found it unnecessary to delve further into the issue and anwering the point no.1 in the negative, proceed to pass the following.

 

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

1.    The complaint is dismissed as not proven.
2.     There would be no order as to cost or otherwise.

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th  day of May-2017 )

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President

 

 

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- Certificate of Registration.
2. Ex.P.2- Driving Licence.
3. Ex.P.3- Certificate of fitness.
4. Ex.P.4- Certificate cum Policy schedule.
5. Ex.P.5- Letter addressed to Mallikarjun by Shriram Gen Ins.Co.
6. Ex.P.6- Estimate of spare parts.( 04 sheets )

 

Documents filed by the O.P.

1. Ex.R.1-  Copy of Power of Attorney.

 

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                 

        Member                                                                     President.

 

mv.